Support NeoGAF

[bishopcruz]

The writing is fine, and solidly considered. Its amazing to me how hung up some people are on Joel as character and yet seemingly have no understanding of who and what he is.

And yet people still go out of their way to make Joel WORSE than he actually is in the game, adding their own "reasons" that he did what he did. It doesn't matter WHY he did it, whether it was to have a Sarah 2.0 or because he just didn't like Dr. Jerry's face. He saved a girl from being sacrificed without her consent. The fireflies are to blame for the scenario, not Joel. Period. Had they gotten her consent then you'd have an argument, without that consent it doesn't matter. Joel was a horrible person before he met Ellie, he was amoral, had been a hunter, and didn't give a shit about anyone but himself and Tess. He CHANGES throughout the last of us, not just because he loves Ellie, but you can even see it in TLoU2, he is a part of the community even after Ellie tells him to fuck off.

You know what shows he became a better person, that he was willing to save a 14-year-old girl from being murdered by a bunch of fanatics. They created the situation of their own downfall, Joel stopped them.

 

[sol_bad]

The problem is if you can't stand her, that makes the entire last half of the game an absolute slog. It might have helped if her campaign actually interacted with Ellie's campaign but it doesn't. Abby barely has an arc at all, but it was at least something, Ellie could have been removed from Seattle and practically nothing would have changed, Tommy pretty much had the entire thing handled.

For the first 10 hours of the game, what is Ellie's arc? It's basically "REVENGE, MUST KILL" and that's it, she doesn't grow or change as a person. She finds out that Dina is pregnant but she wants to push on through with her revenge, nothing changes her during that first 10 hours. Abby arguably has more of an arc than Ellie does. Abby learns to accept and care for her enemy and realises that she can be quite poisonous in her relationship with Owen and Mel. Lev also helps her understand that revenge won't help anything and that she is spiraling into a dark hole.
Mentioning that Ellie could have been removed and that Tommy had everything handled is (IMO) suggesting that Tommy should have been the main character that we played as. Why would we want to play as Tommy? Yeah, he is Joel's brother but I don't have any connection with him, it's Ellie that I have the connection with.

The problem is, Druckmann himself said its her redemption arc.

Any link for this?

What? Yes it is a redemption arc what do you mean? People around her freaking out at her about how shitty of a person she is, but then she randomly starts helping Lev as a result and grows attached in almost the same exact way Ellie and Joel did? I guess if you're arguing Joel isn't a redemption arc (which I'd say it was) because he was still imperfect by the end?

We know Abby can be a shitty person and Abby realises this herself later in the game regarding Owen and Mel.

The relationships between Joel/Ellie and Abby/Lev are completely different. Joel originally wants nothing to do with Ellie but agrees to help because Tess is the boss. Even when Tess dies he still doesn't want to help Ellie but again continues to help her because it was Tess' dying words. Over the course of their journey across the country he comes to care for Ellie and the void he has felt for 20 years goes away.
Abby on the other hand helps Lev and Yara simply due to guilt, entirely different context to the relationship between Joel/Ellie. Abby's personality is totally different to Joel's, at the start of TLOU2 Abby has friends that she loves and cares for and she has a cause to fight for to "make the world a better place". At the start of TLOU1 Joel is just a survive, doing what he needs to do to survive, there is no love or joy in his life. It's easier to accept Abby as a compassionate person than it is Joel at the start of their story arcs.

Joel also doesn't have a redemption arc, him saving a single girl will never redeem him for all the terrible and horrible things he has done in the 20 years since the virus outbreak. He has probably raped and killed countless people before meeting and joining Tess in the QZ. He wasn't looking to redeem himself either, he saved Ellie for selfish reasons, he needed her in his life.

 

[Balducci30]

For the first 10 hours of the game, what is Ellie's arc? It's basically "REVENGE, MUST KILL" and that's it, she doesn't grow or change as a person. She finds out that Dina is pregnant but she wants to push on through with her revenge, nothing changes her during that first 10 hours. Abby arguably has more of an arc than Ellie does. Abby learns to accept and care for her enemy and realises that she can be quite poisonous in her relationship with Owen and Mel. Lev also helps her understand that revenge won't help anything and that she is spiraling into a dark hole.
Mentioning that Ellie could have been removed and that Tommy had everything handled is (IMO) suggesting that Tommy should have been the main character that we played as. Why would we want to play as Tommy? Yeah, he is Joel's brother but I don't have any connection with him, it's Ellie that I have the connection with.



Any link for this?



We know Abby can be a shitty person and Abby realises this herself later in the game regarding Owen and Mel.

The relationships between Joel/Ellie and Abby/Lev are completely different. Joel originally wants nothing to do with Ellie but agrees to help because Tess is the boss. Even when Tess dies he still doesn't want to help Ellie but again continues to help her because it was Tess' dying words. Over the course of their journey across the country he comes to care for Ellie and the void he has felt for 20 years goes away.
Abby on the other hand helps Lev and Yara simply due to guilt, entirely different context to the relationship between Joel/Ellie. Abby's personality is totally different to Joel's, at the start of TLOU2 Abby has friends that she loves and cares for and she has a cause to fight for to "make the world a better place". At the start of TLOU1 Joel is just a survive, doing what he needs to do to survive, there is no love or joy in his life. It's easier to accept Abby as a compassionate person than it is Joel at the start of their story arcs.

Joel also doesn't have a redemption arc, him saving a single girl will never redeem him for all the terrible and horrible things he has done in the 20 years since the virus outbreak. He has probably raped and killed countless people before meeting and joining Tess in the QZ. He wasn't looking to redeem himself either, he saved Ellie for selfish reasons, he needed her in his life.

Probably raped? Huh? He def did some bad shit that is clear but I feel like this is just adding unnecessary shit in your head. I mean argue how you want man you seem convinced. They're both redemption arcs and very similar ones - you just described Joel's redemption arc - I guess you could argue it's a failed redemption arc but it's definitely a redemption arc just due to the qualities of the story - whether you morally approve of his "redemption" or not. And to say that because Abby and Joel have different reasons to start engaging with Lev and Ellie makes the obvious parallels between the two nonexistent - I don't know what to say to that. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

 

[bishopcruz]

For the first 10 hours of the game, what is Ellie's arc? It's basically "REVENGE, MUST KILL" and that's it, she doesn't grow or change as a person. She finds out that Dina is pregnant but she wants to push on through with her revenge, nothing changes her during that first 10 hours. Abby arguably has more of an arc than Ellie does. Abby learns to accept and care for her enemy and realises that she can be quite poisonous in her relationship with Owen and Mel. Lev also helps her understand that revenge won't help anything and that she is spiraling into a dark hole.
Mentioning that Ellie could have been removed and that Tommy had everything handled is (IMO) suggesting that Tommy should have been the main character that we played as. Why would we want to play as Tommy? Yeah, he is Joel's brother but I don't have any connection with him, it's Ellie that I have the connection with.

I didn't mean that you should play as Tommy in Seattle, I meant that Seattle is a giant waste of time an narrative energy as a whole. Elly learns nothing in Seattle, has no character growth and ends more or less in the same place she began. What I meant with Tommy is by the story of the game, he pretty much had Seattle handled solo. Not that we should have played as him, but we needed an actual reason narratively for Ellie to be there, and she needed an arc.

We know Abby can be a shitty person and Abby realises this herself later in the game regarding Owen and Mel.

Does she? Does she really? Abby has pretty much zero self reflection the entire game. Ellie blames herself for Joel killing the fireflies, and blames herself for putting her friends in danger. Abby blames ELLY and Tommy for seeking the same revenge she did. Abby tortures people for fun, and yes she saves Lev but goes full on traitor in doing so., Hell she went AWOL so she could bang her drunk ex-BF. Mel does call her a piece of shit, but the thing is, we have zero context for that line, it comes out of nowhere. At no point to the WLF discuss what they did, at no point to they wonder if it was worth it. A lot of that is because they don't even know they are being hunted until Day 3, another boneheaded story decision.

The relationships between Joel/Ellie and Abby/Lev are completely different. Joel originally wants nothing to do with Ellie but agrees to help because Tess is the boss. Even when Tess dies he still doesn't want to help Ellie but again continues to help her because it was Tess' dying words. Over the course of their journey across the country he comes to care for Ellie and the void he has felt for 20 years goes away.
Abby on the other hand helps Lev and Yara simply due to guilt, entirely different context to the relationship between Joel/Ellie. Abby's personality is totally different to Joel's, at the start of TLOU2 Abby has friends that she loves and cares for and she has a cause to fight for to "make the world a better place". At the start of TLOU1 Joel is just a survive, doing what he needs to do to survive, there is no love or joy in his life. It's easier to accept Abby as a compassionate person than it is Joel at the start of their story arcs.

Joel also doesn't have a redemption arc, him saving a single girl will never redeem him for all the terrible and horrible things he has done in the 20 years since the virus outbreak. He has probably raped and killed countless people before meeting and joining Tess in the QZ. He wasn't looking to redeem himself either, he saved Ellie for selfish reasons, he needed her in his life.

Abby works for a straight up fascist organization that murders people who dissent. She isn't just a grunt either, she is one of Issac's top people. Abby is known for killing scars, she is shown torturing Joel for hours and for PLEASURE. She doesn't come close to even starting on a redemption arc. One might have been intended, but it isn't well realized. She seems to be in better spirits in Santa Barbara, but it rings a bit hollow.

Joel however DOES indeed have a redemption arc. I am amazed how many people don't see it in TLoU1, he is a horrible man at the beginning who has given up on life and he learns not only to love again, but to be a better person, and we see the apotheosis of this in his time in Jackson. He is a member of the community, a loving dad to Ellie, someone who risks his life for the greater good, and someone who is greatly mourned by those in the city once he dies. Did he balance the scales of karma for his time as a smuggler and a hunter? That's not on me to decide, but he became a decidedly better person by his own actions and choices.

 

[Kadayi]

Joel also doesn't have a redemption arc, him saving a single girl will never redeem him for all the terrible and horrible things he has done in the 20 years since the virus outbreak.

I'm not quite sure you understand what a redemption arc is tbh dude. A redemption arc is about a positive change of direction for a character from bad to good, not necessarily about undoing the past. Something or someone comes into a characters life and it makes them change their ways for the better. Joel's story in the last of us isn't an out and out tale of redemption though. Not because he can't be redeemed, but simply because by the time we meet him he's not an out and out villainous character as he's already moved on from his past misdeeds. Although his is able to draw deep from the wellspring of his earlier life when circumstance demands it (as when torturing fools). If anything at the beginning of the game he's firmly in the Han Solo Rogue camp of self interest if there's money at the end of it. Ellie is nothing more than a Job initially, it's only as the game progresses that a bond is formed between them and if anything it's about Joel finally coming to terms with his own loss and learning to care about someone else as he guides them and gradually teaches them how to survive to this hostile world.

 

[sol_bad]

Probably raped? Huh? He def did some bad shit that is clear but I feel like this is just adding unnecessary shit in your head. I mean argue how you want man you seem convinced. They're both redemption arcs and very similar ones - you just described Joel's redemption arc - I guess you could argue it's a failed redemption arc but it's definitely a redemption arc just due to the qualities of the story - whether you morally approve of his "redemption" or not. And to say that because Abby and Joel have different reasons to start engaging with Lev and Ellie makes the obvious parallels between the two nonexistent - I don't know what to say to that. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Yes, I am going to the extreme there, point is we don't know how far down the black hole Joel fell. His brother wanted nothing to do with him because of what he was doing. Him saving Ellie is not a redemption, how is murdering a surgeon and killing Marlene in cold blood considered a redemption (plus how many soldiers depending on the player)? Even 7 years ago that final part of the game didn't feel 100% right.

 

[Balducci30]

Yes, I am going to the extreme there, point is we don't know how far down the black hole Joel fell. His brother wanted nothing to do with him because of what he was doing. Him saving Ellie is not a redemption, how is murdering a surgeon and killing Marlene in cold blood considered a redemption (plus how many soldiers depending on the player)? Even 7 years ago that final part of the game didn't feel 100% right.

that’s why I said you can argue it’s a failed redemption arc - which is a specific type of redemption arc. Either way I do agree with your earlier sentiment that Abby is more fun to play as vs Ellie - who’s story really loses steam like less than a third through.

 

[Knot3D]

Wher does it say Ellie knows there is a risk of death to be studied> Nowhere that I can remember. In fact she is never actually conscious from the moment she is found until she wakes up in the car. She knew she might be there being studied for a while, but she had every expectation of leaving with Joel and going to Jackson.

As for the good Dr. Jerry, yeah, sorry I realize Joel was in full action-hero mode but a Knife, even a small one can fuck a dude up, even untrained, and at that range, it;s even more dangerous.

I do suggest you watch this analysis from a real world legal point of view - TLOU2 "justification" of Joel's killing was BS, because his actions at Firefly hospital were mostly justified.

 

[Woggleman]

It is not a matter of justified or not justified. Almost everybody exists in a morally grey area in both of the games but from the point of view of the woman who killed Joel he murdered her father and destroyed her life. She was doling out justice from her perspective.

 

[Knot3D]

It is not a matter of justified or not justified. Almost everybody exists in a morally grey area in both of the games but from the point of view of the woman who killed Joel he murdered her father and destroyed her life. She was doling out justice from her perspective.

Missing the point.

The way the Fireflies handled this was unacceptable. Period.
Also, according to your logic might as well throw out any legal system.

ND tried to sneakily justify Doc's actions by having a scene in which Abby tells him she would be OK with sacrifice if it were her - nudging the audience to align with the doc's perspective,

However, as the video here illustrates, it would still classify as intent to murder, so legally speaking Joel's action was self defense on behalf of Ellie.

 

[Woggleman]

There is no legal system in these games. Law and order for the most part has broken so people work on their own codes. It isn't a perfect example but what Jerry wanted to do was similar to dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It killed a lot of innocent people but some might argue that it saved many more lives. Developing a vaccine off of Ellie would have killed her but in the mind of Jerry it was also saving potentially millions of lives. It meant that his daughter and many other kids would not have to live in that hellscape and society could one day return to normal. Sacrificing one life was worth that to him. He wasn't doing it for kicks and you could clearly tell he wished there was another way. He wasn't just prepared to kill her for kicks.

At the same time I also understand Joels perspective. The game does a good job showing how everybody is the good guy in their own story.

 

[Knot3D]

There is no legal system in these games.

All the more reason to emphasize analysis of character actions and decisions based upon a legal system.

Developing a vaccine off of Ellie would have killed her but in the mind of Jerry it was also saving potentially millions of lives.

He was an opportunist who had NO reason NOT to wake up Ellie and get her consent. Not of legal age to decide her own fate ? No problem.. because as you said... legal system is out of the window in the game story, right?

As the video analysis suggested; the Fireflies had no good reason to not consult Joel and Ellie. Their d1ckmove in the first place.

 

[DForce]

Missing the point.

The way the Fireflies handled this was unacceptable. Period.
Also, according to your logic might as well throw out any legal system.

ND tried to sneakily justify Doc's actions by having a scene in which Abby tells him she would be OK with sacrifice if it were her - nudging the audience to align with the doc's perspective,

However, as the video here illustrates, it would still classify as intent to murder, so legally speaking Joel's action was self defense on behalf of Ellie.

You're right, if you completely ignore the fact that the Doctor couldn't answer the question Marlene asked him if he would sacrifice his own daughter for a cure.

The narrative of the story still doesn't lean one way or the other when it comes to Joel making the right decision. The ending drives home that point when Joel says he would do it all over again if the lord gave him a second chance.

Joel was acting as any "father" would, but there's no denying that it was a selfish decision and he wanted to hide the truth from Ellie.

 

[Woggleman]

Joel acted as any reasonable father and Abby acted as any daughter who loves her father would.

 

[Knot3D]

But objectively speaking, from a legal point of view Joel was in his right due to the circumstances the Fireflies forced him and Ellie into (watch the video; kidnapping, intent of murder and threat of lethal force all done by Fireflies before Joel could even state any proper objection to their adhoc plan) - even if that legal system isn't in place anymore within the story. Afteral, the system was conceived for the very fact that there once wasn't one.

Also, Joel didn't torture the doc to death.

 

[bishopcruz]

I do suggest you watch this analysis from a real world legal point of view - TLOU2 "justification" of Joel's killing was BS, because his actions at Firefly hospital were mostly justified.

Great video. Not that it will matter to the people who think Joel is a monster for saving a girl from murder.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Great video. Not that it will matter to the people who think Joel is a monster for saving a girl from murder.

It's weird how one person's opinion doesn't automatically change another person's opinion, right?

 

[bishopcruz]

It's weird how one person's opinion doesn't automatically change another person's opinion, right?

More a matter of justification. Look, I can buy it if you say "Yeah, killing that girl is morally wrong, but it's something I am willing to do to save the world." But that is a different argument to "Joel is a selfish man who got what he deserved for killing all of the fireflies and that doctor." He can be justified in what he did, and the fireflies can be wrong in not only what they did but how they handled it, and still think it was for the best that they did what they did. My is with those who think it was a monstrous act of selfishness to save a girl who was going to be murdered. And no, there was no other option but violence in that scenario, the fireflies saw to that.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

More a matter of justification. Look, I can buy it if you say "Yeah, killing that girl is morally wrong, but it's something I am willing to do to save the world." But that is a different argument to "Joel is a selfish man who got what he deserved for killing all of the fireflies and that doctor." He can be justified in what he did, and the fireflies can be wrong in not only what they did but how they handled it, and still think it was for the best that they did what they did. My is with those who think it was a monstrous act of selfishness to save a girl who was going to be murdered. And no, there was no other option but violence in that scenario, the fireflies saw to that.

You must be forgetting Marlene. Laying on the ground... begging for her life and Joel shoots her dead. If you can justify killing her because "she'd keep coming" then you can justify killing Ellie to save the world. The second you're killing people because of what might happen in the future you're on the same moral ground. The second Joel disarms the surgeon he doesn't need to murder him, btw. Whether or not Joel "deserved" to be killed by Abby is entirely separate from the discussion regarding Joel's actions and whether or not they were selfish. If you are following the game's narrative

Spoiler

there aren't justifications for revenge and Ellie herself was willing to forgive Joel and was almost as mad her opportunity was taken from her as she was he was killed.

. Part of what made the first game's ending so special is the moral ambiguity of your actions, people who want to argue it was the most morally righteous thing ever have such a narrow view of the events I can't even imagine why they enjoyed it as much as other people did. That ending was great because I was glad I saved Ellie but felt dirty all the same, I love the moral conflict it creates inside us.

 

[Keihart]

All the more reason to emphasize analysis of character actions and decisions based upon a legal system.

He was an opportunist who had NO reason NOT to wake up Ellie and get her consent. Not of legal age to decide her own fate ? No problem.. because as you said... legal system is out of the window in the game story, right?

As the video analysis suggested; the Fireflies had no good reason to not consult Joel and Ellie. Their d1ckmove in the first place.

it's the fucking trolley dilemma, why be so dense on purpose.

The only correct answer depends on your own morals, there it's no true right answer.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

it's the fucking trolley dilemma, why be so dense on purpose.

The only correct answer depends on your own morals, there it's no true right answer.

I always thought the correct answer was to do nothing, because regardless of how many people saved/died/etc. for you to act is to purposefully cause a death.

 

[bishopcruz]

You must be forgetting Marlene. Laying on the ground... begging for her life and Joel shoots her dead. If you can justify killing her because "she'd keep coming" then you can justify killing Ellie to save the world. The second you're killing people because of what might happen in the future you're on the same moral ground. The second Joel disarms the surgeon he doesn't need to murder him, btw. Whether or not Joel "deserved" to be killed by Abby is entirely separate from the discussion regarding Joel's actions and whether or not they were selfish. If you are following the game's narrative

Spoiler

there aren't justifications for revenge and Ellie herself was willing to forgive Joel and was almost as mad her opportunity was taken from her as she was he was killed.

. Part of what made the first game's ending so special is the moral ambiguity of your actions, people who want to argue it was the most morally righteous thing ever have such a narrow view of the events I can't even imagine why they enjoyed it as much as other people did. That ending was great because I was glad I saved Ellie but felt dirty all the same, I love the moral conflict it creates inside us.

Marlene is the ONE where you can argue he wasn't justified. Though, he did have a point, she WOULD come after them. Justification is interesting, Joel if you walk up to the surgeon stabs him in the neck with the scalpel. The man is just about to start the surgery on Ellie, and then literally threatens Joel. Now, let us assume that Joel disarms him, does the surgeon STOP trying to prevent Joel from letting him murder a little girl? Unlikely, Joel also doesn't have a lot of time as the fireflies are just behind waiting to murder him, and with his death, murder a little girl. So no Dr. Jerry does not get a pass. If your Joel killed the two people in the room with him, those are also questionable..

Here's the thing though, the ending of the first game was never morally ambiguous. Not if you look at everything that is happening in the situation, and I have to consider it intentional because every single piece of plot that takes place from the second Joel wakes up is making it clear that in any society where consent and morality matter at all, the fireflies are in the wrong. They make sure to NOT wake Ellie, they threaten Joel with death, they tell him to be grateful he isn't just getting murdered. They also do this within HOURS of finding the one immune person in all of creation. They do this out of a desperation that has been shown consistently and repeatedly throughout the game. Joel does the ONLY right thing in the scenario.

Now where the moral ambiguity happens is in him lying to Ellie. Joel isn't sure what her reaction would be, he knows she has massive survivor's guilt and he knows she likely wouldn't understand. So he lies to her, and at least in the first game it is PRETTY clear that she knows that he is, or at least heavily suspects. But again, that is where the ambiguity is, and that's why it works.

Also, I was again speaking of the new breed of people who now hate on Joel mainly because of TLoU2 and are the "he got what he deserved" which I see over and over. You also get a ton of the "Joel took Ellie's choice away from her." which is again not up for debate as she never had a choice in the matter.

 

[Keihart]

I always thought the correct answer was to do nothing, because regardless of how many people saved/died/etc. for you to act is to purposefully cause a death.

You can argue that inaction it's action, like the quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

 

[bishopcruz]

it's the fucking trolley dilemma, why be so dense on purpose.

The only correct answer depends on your own morals, there it's no true right answer.

No it isn't the trolley dilemma. The context of it is entirely different. The trolley dilemma is immediate. This is murder one girl to MAYBE save an indeterminate amount of people down the line. The context of it changes everything. THAT is what makes it a pretty simple choice if you have any belief in right or wrong.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Marlene is the ONE where you can argue he wasn't justified. Though, he did have a point, she WOULD come after them. Justification is interesting, Joel if you walk up to the surgeon stabs him in the neck with the scalpel. The man is just about to start the surgery on Ellie, and then literally threatens Joel. Now, let us assume that Joel disarms him, does the surgeon STOP trying to prevent Joel from letting him murder a little girl? Unlikely, Joel also doesn't have a lot of time as the fireflies are just behind waiting to murder him, and with his death, murder a little girl. So no Dr. Jerry does not get a pass. If your Joel killed the two people in the room with him, those are also questionable..

Here's the thing though, the ending of the first game was never morally ambiguous. Not if you look at everything that is happening in the situation, and I have to consider it intentional because every single piece of plot that takes place from the second Joel wakes up is making it clear that in any society where consent and morality matter at all, the fireflies are in the wrong. They make sure to NOT wake Ellie, they threaten Joel with death, they tell him to be grateful he isn't just getting murdered. They also do this within HOURS of finding the one immune person in all of creation. They do this out of a desperation that has been shown consistently and repeatedly throughout the game. Joel does the ONLY right thing in the scenario.

Now where the moral ambiguity happens is in him lying to Ellie. Joel isn't sure what her reaction would be, he knows she has massive survivor's guilt and he knows she likely wouldn't understand. So he lies to her, and at least in the first game it is PRETTY clear that she knows that he is, or at least heavily suspects. But again, that is where the ambiguity is, and that's why it works.

Also, I was again speaking of the new breed of people who now hate on Joel mainly because of TLoU2 and are the "he got what he deserved" which I see over and over. You also get a ton of the "Joel took Ellie's choice away from her." which is again not up for debate as she never had a choice in the matter.

You kinda skipped right by the idea that if you can justify killing Marlene because she'd just come after Ellie then you can justify killing Ellie because of all the people you'd save. You talk a lot about consent except we kinda know what Ellie's choice would have been, pretending otherwise is disingenuous and saying "she has survivors guilt" isn't really a good argument to remove her ability to choose. It works about as well as saying Joel shouldn't get to choose what happens to Ellie because he has guilt over his first daughter.

Edit - To the above... you're taking the trolley dilemma way too literally if you think this isn't the trolley dilemma, dude, it could take the trolley 10 years to reach the people, it's still the same choice.

 

[Woggleman]

I don't hate on Joel at all. He had good reasons for what he did but at the same time he is the villain in another person's story. He is a complex and morally grey person like most people in this franchise.

 

[Keihart]

No it isn't the trolley dilemma. The context of it is entirely different. The trolley dilemma is immediate. This is murder one girl to MAYBE save an indeterminate amount of people down the line. The context of it changes everything. THAT is what makes it a pretty simple choice if you have any belief in right or wrong.

it is the only chance in context.
You don't need to hate Joel to see how it can be justified in either way.
Ellie and Joel even have a conversation about it before arriving the hospital.

Your are just adhering your own morals to the characters and taking sides with what it's more comfortable, but if you look at it from the characters POV, Joel did dirty to Ellie from selfish reasons, he found a reason to fight for and didn't want to give it up again, the fact that Ellie got spared in the process it's just collateral.

You can watch how conflicted Joel is about what he did when you walk with Ellie towards Jackson, it's pretty fucked up too.
The road to hell it's paved with good intentions.

 

[bishopcruz]

You kinda skipped right by the idea that if you can justify killing Marlene because she'd just come after Ellie then you can justify killing Ellie because of all the people you'd save. You talk a lot about consent except we kinda know what Ellie's choice would have been, pretending otherwise is disingenuous and saying "she has survivors guilt" isn't really a good argument to remove her ability to choose. It works about as well as saying Joel shouldn't get to choose what happens to Ellie because he has guilt over his first daughter.

Edit - To the above... you're taking the trolley dilemma way too literally if you think this isn't the trolley dilemma, dude, it could take the trolley 10 years to reach the people, it's still the same choice.

Because the trolly works as a thought experiment due to the immediacy of the action. If you have 10 years to have the trolley get there , then you have other options that can present themselves. You are saying that it is wise to kill one person NOW because the trolley might kill someone 10 years in the future. It doesn't wash. At all. Also this is probably closest to the surgeon's dilemma, which is a variation on the trolley. You have five people who need different organs. One man comes into your office who is a perfect match for all of them. Is it OK to kill him? Unless you are a base utilitarian the answer is no.

I told you that the justification for Marlene in particular was iffy, but even given the exact world they live in, I think it is understandable. Or as I said before, "It's wrong, but I am willing to live with it." But there is a huge difference between that and killing Ellie. Marlene had JUST threatened Joel with death again if he didn't do as she asked. Yes she held up her hands but that doesn't make her less dangerous, she was still holding her gun, so the initial shot is justified. Marlene had shown an immediate desire to take Ellie back to kill her. At the very least we have a causal link between Marlene's continued existence and an increase in danger for Ellie.

Also we do NOT know what Ellie's choice would have been. Ellie doesn't even know what her choice would have been. She knows what she THINKS her choice would have been two years removed from the scenario when her life wasn't in danger anymore. It's easy to say you are willing to die for someone else when death isn't hanging over her head. Look the fact is that she was NEVER given a choice. And that is not on Joel, that is on Marlene and Dr. Jerry. There is no excuse for it. None. They had her for less than a day and they prepped her for death. They didn't search for alternatives, how could hey? They didn't even bother to let her say goodbye to the people she cared about. There is no excuse for that, and THAT more than anything else is what caused them to die as they did.

Ellie's survivor's guilt doesn't enter into the Firefly scenario. Because she is never given the choice. Had they WANTED the thing to be morally ambiguous then you would have had be OK with the surgery and Joel NOT be ok with it. Then you have some real ambiguity: Is Ellie of sound mind at 14 to make the choice? Are the fireflies using her guilt to make her do something she wouldn't want to do,? is it right to kill a 14 year old girl even with her consent for the chance of a cure? And if she agreed, what right does Joel have to stop her?

But all of those questions are pointless because they are not part of the scenario we are given. In the scenario as presented Joel acted in the only moral way he could. It would have been immoral to let Ellie die, sacrificing her without her knowledge or consent. This isn't even a particularly hard moral quandry.

 

[bishopcruz]

it is the only chance in context.
You don't need to hate Joel to see how it can be justified in either way.
Ellie and Joel even have a conversation about it before arriving the hospital.

Your are just adhering your own morals to the characters and taking sides with what it's more comfortable, but if you look at it from the characters POV, Joel did dirty to Ellie from selfish reasons, he found a reason to fight for and didn't want to give it up again, the fact that Ellie got spared in the process it's just collateral.

You can watch how conflicted Joel is about what he did when you walk with Ellie towards Jackson, it's pretty fucked up too.
The road to hell it's paved with good intentions.

Bullshit. Joel did dirty to Ellie by lying. You are trying to add moral ambiguity that wasn't there in the first place. HAD the fireflies asked her then you would have a leg to stand on. But they did not. They then threatened Joel with death if he didn't comply. In nothing even close to a just society are they in the right. Ellie did not enter that hospital expecting to die, or that death was even on the table. She couldn't have because Marlene had no idea about it, nor did the greatest surgeon/immunologist of our time Dr. Jerry. Joel is likey shaken by what he just did, and for good reason. He just killed a lot of people who he had reason to believe were allies just minutes before, he also realizes that he did stop a possible cure from happening, so he is shaken, no doubt. But him being shaken doesn't make it wrong.

But fine, for the sake of discussion what excuse did the fireflies have to not ask her for her consent. What reason did they have for not letting her make her peace at least, have a lost meal pray to her god if she had any? Those are basic fucking rights we give to people on death row, and an innocent girl doesn't get them? Yeah, no. Say there is moral ambiguity here all you want, there isn't and that is ON THEM. Joel not respecting Ellie's choice is a rationalization after the fact and ignores the entire scenario leading up to the shootout.

 

[Keihart]

Bullshit. Joel did dirty to Ellie by lying. You are trying to add moral ambiguity that wasn't there in the first place. HAD the fireflies asked her then you would have a leg to stand on. But they did not. They then threatened Joel with death if he didn't comply. In nothing even close to a just society are they in the right. Ellie did not enter that hospital expecting to die, or that death was even on the table. She couldn't have because Marlene had no idea about it, nor did the greatest surgeon/immunologist of our time Dr. Jerry. Joel is likey shaken by what he just did, and for good reason. He just killed a lot of people who he had reason to believe were allies just minutes before, he also realizes that he did stop a possible cure from happening, so he is shaken, no doubt. But him being shaken doesn't make it wrong.

But fine, for the sake of discussion what excuse did the fireflies have to not ask her for her consent. What reason did they have for not letting her make her peace at least, have a lost meal pray to her god if she had any? Those are basic fucking rights we give to people on death row, and an innocent girl doesn't get them? Yeah, no. Say there is moral ambiguity here all you want, there isn't and that is ON THEM. Joel not respecting Ellie's choice is a rationalization after the fact and ignores the entire scenario leading up to the shootout.

you keep circling about obvious morality dilemmas, the only new thing are perspectives and personal justifications from the characters.
This IS the trolley stuff.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Because the trolly works as a thought experiment due to the immediacy of the action. If you have 10 years to have the trolley get there , then you have other options that can present themselves. You are saying that it is wise to kill one person NOW because the trolley might kill someone 10 years in the future. It doesn't wash. At all. Also this is probably closest to the surgeon's dilemma, which is a variation on the trolley. You have five people who need different organs. One man comes into your office who is a perfect match for all of them. Is it OK to kill him? Unless you are a base utilitarian the answer is no.

I told you that the justification for Marlene in particular was iffy, but even given the exact world they live in, I think it is understandable. Or as I said before, "It's wrong, but I am willing to live with it." But there is a huge difference between that and killing Ellie. Marlene had JUST threatened Joel with death again if he didn't do as she asked. Yes she held up her hands but that doesn't make her less dangerous, she was still holding her gun, so the initial shot is justified. Marlene had shown an immediate desire to take Ellie back to kill her. At the very least we have a causal link between Marlene's continued existence and an increase in danger for Ellie.

Also we do NOT know what Ellie's choice would have been. Ellie doesn't even know what her choice would have been. She knows what she THINKS her choice would have been two years removed from the scenario when her life wasn't in danger anymore. It's easy to say you are willing to die for someone else when death isn't hanging over her head. Look the fact is that she was NEVER given a choice. And that is not on Joel, that is on Marlene and Dr. Jerry. There is no excuse for it. None. They had her for less than a day and they prepped her for death. They didn't search for alternatives, how could hey? They didn't even bother to let her say goodbye to the people she cared about. There is no excuse for that, and THAT more than anything else is what caused them to die as they did.

Ellie's survivor's guilt doesn't enter into the Firefly scenario. Because she is never given the choice. Had they WANTED the thing to be morally ambiguous then you would have had be OK with the surgery and Joel NOT be ok with it. Then you have some real ambiguity: Is Ellie of sound mind at 14 to make the choice? Are the fireflies using her guilt to make her do something she wouldn't want to do,? is it right to kill a 14 year old girl even with her consent for the chance of a cure? And if she agreed, what right does Joel have to stop her?

But all of those questions are pointless because they are not part of the scenario we are given. In the scenario as presented Joel acted in the only moral way he could. It would have been immoral to let Ellie die, sacrificing her without her knowledge or consent. This isn't even a particularly hard moral quandry.

It's not immediacy, it's guarantee. Getting a cure for the disease is a guarantee of lives saved. The trolley is a damn metaphor, it could be a meteor heading to Earth that will take 57 years to get here, if we knock it off its trajectory we save Earth but doom another planet full of sentient beings, you need to stop being so literal. I looked up surgeon's dilemma and the results were not what you're claiming it is.

We're talking about when he kills her, she's shot, unarmed and begging, not justifying the first shot. Creating causal links between Marlene existing and danger for Ellie is no different from the causal link between surgery on an immune person and creation of a cure/vaccine that saved hundreds/thousands/etc.

Yes we do, her story about Riley, waiting for her turn and her immunity having to mean something IS YOUR ANSWER. What does it matter if it's two years removed? If anything shouldn't her choice two years later earn MORE respect from people claiming "she's just 14!" in the prior scenario? You keep talking about whether she's given a choice, tell me, is it implied she had no choice in seeking the Fireflies out at all? The excuse was she was unconscious. Joel caused them to die as they did and his justifications weren't the ones you're coming to, if you understand Joel as a character you understand why he did what he did and none of it was moral outrage.

You have more conflict in your scenario, less ambiguity, actually. We know Ellie wants it to mean something, we know she wants to cure people but Joel doesn't even tell her the truth, so how could she decide? Both Joel and the Fireflies deny her any decision of her own in that scenario, one did it to have a new daughter, another did it to save humanity. Who was more noble when you consider the reasons? You can justify the Fireflies being less noble than Joel with all sorts of malarkey but you're ignoring the intent, what was Joel's and was theirs? What were Joel's motives?

If you believe Joel acted in the only moral way he could then you are very narrow minded and the trolley dilemma is beyond you. Joel kills more people than Ellie to save Ellie, and dooms many more people beyond her. That's why it's a moral quandary. The idea behind the trolley problem is to have no correct solution, to simply provoke thought... the same is true of TLOU, in the moment you will feel righteous, but the falling action is specifically designed for you to question that righteousness.

 

[bishopcruz]

you keep circling about obvious morality dilemmas, the only new thing are perspectives and personal justifications from the characters.
This IS the trolley stuff.

Sign the trolley is about one direct action saving one vs many. The key there is direct. If it doesn't have a direct A to B sequence then it doesn't really fly. This is not that, this is killing someone on the chance that others might not die from a disease they may never get at some indeterminant point in the future. If it WAS a trolley it would be like if you had one person, and a bunch of people crossing the road in 1000 miles, you can turn and kill the one person, and none of the people walking down the way will ever see the train, but if the train keeps going, some of them might get hit, but they can mitigate their risk by not walking by the tracks. Oh and also, there is a not-insignificant chance that after you kill the first person, the train will jump back on the track anyway and in the future maybe we will come up with another way to not have people hit by the damn thing anyway.

Justification matters, it is what changes things from murder to self defense, from rape to consentual sex, from gift-giving to robbery. Consent is the key in all of those, and it is why I continue to harp on it here. By doing what they did, the fireflies ignored consent completely, and in an attempt to stop them murdering someone they were murdered. Too bad, so sad. Because if you are willing to kill someone because more people will be saved then you can argue that it is ok to force people to donate organs for others, or force some to starve so that others can live better. Strict utilitarianism is a pretty great evil.

But you still haven't answered, what excuse do the fireflies have for handling the situation as they did?

 

[Keihart]

Sign the trolley is about one direct action saving one vs many. The key there is direct. If it doesn't have a direct A to B sequence then it doesn't really fly. This is not that, this is killing someone on the chance that others might not die from a disease they may never get at some indeterminant point in the future. If it WAS a trolley it would be like if you had one person, and a bunch of people crossing the road in 1000 miles, you can turn and kill the one person, and none of the people walking down the way will ever see the train, but if the train keeps going, some of them might get hit, but they can mitigate their risk by not walking by the tracks. Oh and also, there is a not-insignificant chance that after you kill the first person, the train will jump back on the track anyway and in the future maybe we will come up with another way to not have people hit by the damn thing anyway.

Justification matters, it is what changes things from murder to self defense, from rape to consentual sex, from gift-giving to robbery. Consent is the key in all of those, and it is why I continue to harp on it here. By doing what they did, the fireflies ignored consent completely, and in an attempt to stop them murdering someone they were murdered. Too bad, so sad. Because if you are willing to kill someone because more people will be saved then you can argue that it is ok to force people to donate organs for others, or force some to starve so that others can live better. Strict utilitarianism is a pretty great evil.

But you still haven't answered, what excuse do the fireflies have for handling the situation as they did?

They can promise the world the chance of a better future by killing one little girl, which is almost nothing compared to everything they do to only survive. Abby's father even says "this would justified everything we've done" which is almost the same thing Ellie thinks about the situation before heading to the hospital when she says to Joel "it can't be for nothing" referring to all the people they have killed.

 

[bishopcruz]

It's not immediacy, it's guarantee. Getting a cure for the disease is a guarantee of lives saved. The trolley is a damn metaphor, it could be a meteor heading to Earth that will take 57 years to get here, if we knock it off its trajectory we save Earth but doom another planet full of sentient beings, you need to stop being so literal. I looked up surgeon's dilemma and the results were not what you're claiming it is.

We're talking about when he kills her, she's shot, unarmed and begging, not justifying the first shot. Creating causal links between Marlene existing and danger for Ellie is no different from the causal link between surgery on an immune person and creation of a cure/vaccine that saved hundreds/thousands/etc.

Yes we do, her story about Riley, waiting for her turn and her immunity having to mean something IS YOUR ANSWER. What does it matter if it's two years removed? If anything shouldn't her choice two years later earn MORE respect from people claiming "she's just 14!" in the prior scenario? You keep talking about whether she's given a choice, tell me, is it implied she had no choice in seeking the Fireflies out at all? The excuse was she was unconscious. Joel caused them to die as they did and his justifications weren't the ones you're coming to, if you understand Joel as a character you understand why he did what he did and none of it was moral outrage.

You have more conflict in your scenario, less ambiguity, actually. We know Ellie wants it to mean something, we know she wants to cure people but Joel doesn't even tell her the truth, so how could she decide? Both Joel and the Fireflies deny her any decision of her own in that scenario, one did it to have a new daughter, another did it to save humanity. Who was more noble when you consider the reasons? You can justify the Fireflies being less noble than Joel with all sorts of malarkey but you're ignoring the intent, what was Joel's and was theirs? What were Joel's motives?

If you believe Joel acted in the only moral way he could then you are very narrow minded and the trolley dilemma is beyond you. Joel kills more people than Ellie to save Ellie, and dooms many more people beyond her. That's why it's a moral quandary. The idea behind the trolley problem is to have no correct solution, to simply provoke thought... the same is true of TLOU, in the moment you will feel righteous, but the falling action is specifically designed for you to question that righteousness.

SHE WAS NEVER ASKED! Ask her and the whole scenario changes. But she was never asked. Give me a good reason for her to not you know, have the right to know she is sacrificing herself. There isn't one and that is why all the posturing in the world won't change the fact that in saving her life in THAT scenario, Joel did the right thing. You are the narrow minded one who cannot conceive of justice. If three people are trying to kill someone and I stop them with lethal force is it wrong to have killed the three people to save one? Of course fucking not, and you know it don't pretend you don't. Stop this sophistry and look at the actual situation that is given here. Hell being close to Ellie has nothing to do with it, if a crazed cult said that they could cure cancer by killing an innocent girl and they told her she was coming in for a check-up. They don't let her know what is happening, they just decide to kill her. You know this and you have the power to stop it. Letting her die is a moral evil. I say this with a father who is dying of cancer.

With Ellie the case is exactly that. You speak to know of WHY Joel did what he did. And you make a lot of assumptions. He calls out the fireflies on their own excuses for killing her. He asks to see her and is denied, and he is threatened with DEATH unless he lets it go. Come the fuck on, in what world is him trying to save her NOT justified? And his reasons for doing it don't actually matter. He could have done it because he didn't like the way Marlene looked at him when she left, he STILL did the right thing because he stopped a girl from being murdered. Her life has value in and of itself, whether she sees it or not. The fireflies consistently think they are doing good in the world but the evidence of the bodies and zones they leave behind show that they consistently do more harm than good. Some of the greatest acts of evil are done because people think they are doing the right thing.

You talk about justifications, then tell me what is the justification for not telling her, for not letting her say her goodbyes for doing it within hours of seeing her for the first time? There isn't any, and that is the difference.

And let me be clear. No it isn't narrow-minded to look at the points of view of others, consider them, and realize that they are wrong on any moral level that you can think of outside of strict utilitarianism.

 

[Keihart]

SHE WAS NEVER ASKED! Ask her and the whole scenario changes. But she was never asked. Give me a good reason for her to not you know, have the right to know she is sacrificing herself. There isn't one and that is why all the posturing in the world won't change the fact that in saving her life in THAT scenario, Joel did the right thing. You are the narrow minded one who cannot conceive of justice. If three people are trying to kill someone and I stop them with lethal force is it wrong to have killed the three people to save one? Of course fucking not, and you know it don't pretend you don't. Stop this sophistry and look at the actual situation that is given here. Hell being close to Ellie has nothing to do with it, if a crazed cult said that they could cure cancer by killing an innocent girl and they told her she was coming in for a check-up. They don't let her know what is happening, they just decide to kill her. You know this and you have the power to stop it. Letting her die is a moral evil. I say this with a father who is dying of cancer.

With Ellie the case is exactly that. You speak to know of WHY Joel did what he did. And you make a lot of assumptions. He calls out the fireflies on their own excuses for killing her. He asks to see her and is denied, and he is threatened with DEATH unless he lets it go. Come the fuck on, in what world is him trying to save her NOT justified? And his reasons for doing it don't actually matter. He could have done it because he didn't like the way Marlene looked at him when she left, he STILL did the right thing because he stopped a girl from being murdered. Her life has value in and of itself, whether she sees it or not. The fireflies consistently think they are doing good in the world but the evidence of the bodies and zones they leave behind show that they consistently do more harm than good. Some of the greatest acts of evil are done because people think they are doing the right thing.

You talk about justifications, then tell me what is the justification for not telling her, for not letting her say her goodbyes for doing it within hours of seeing her for the first time? There isn't any, and that is the difference.

And let me be clear. No it isn't narrow-minded to look at the points of view of others, consider them, and realize that they are wrong on any moral level that you can think of outside of strict utilitarianism.

dude, you don't need to know if someone wants to die to determine that it's a sacrifice worth doing.
The bomb example it's a good one, those people had no idea what was coming, but were they ok with stopping the war at the cost of their lifes?

The problem here it's exacerbated by letting you know that Ellie it's ok with it before a decision it's made. The fact that we are arguing proves that it isn't as cut and dry as you might want it to be.
This discussion happened all over the internet too with the fist game's launch.

 

[bishopcruz]

They can promise the world the chance of a better future by killing one little girl, which is almost nothing compared to everything they do to only survive. Abby's father even says "this would justified everything we've done" which is almost the same thing Ellie thinks about the situation before heading to the hospital when she says to Joel "it can't be for nothing" referring to all the people they have killed.

You haven't answered the question. That answers why they would sacrifice her. That is a reason, and it's even a reason for which Ellie might be willing to sacrifice herself. My question is, why not ask? Why do it RIGHT THEN? Why not give her a day to think it over, why not let her say her goodbyes? Everyone understands the reason that her sacrifice would benefit the world, we know why they are willing to kill her. But it is in them not offering her a choice, in not even giving her the knowledge of what will happen that they become monsters, flat out.

 

[sol_bad]

Here's the thing though, the ending of the first game was never morally ambiguous. Not if you look at everything that is happening in the situation, and I have to consider it intentional because every single piece of plot that takes place from the second Joel wakes up is making it clear that in any society where consent and morality matter at all, the fireflies are in the wrong. They make sure to NOT wake Ellie, they threaten Joel with death, they tell him to be grateful he isn't just getting murdered. They also do this within HOURS of finding the one immune person in all of creation. They do this out of a desperation that has been shown consistently and repeatedly throughout the game. Joel does the ONLY right thing in the scenario.

hmmmmm
Maybe you should listen to the creators of the game talk about the ending. They themselves think it's morally ambiguous and love all the discussions that come up about it from fans.

 

[bishopcruz]

hmmmmm
Maybe you should listen to the creators of the game talk about the ending. They themselves think it's morally ambiguous and love all the discussions that come up about it from fans.

Yeah they mention it, but again look at the text of the game. Look the ending sequence was always the most contrived section of TLoU, it worked as well as it did because it didn't hinge on the fireflies actions making sense, it hinged on the lie. The Lie is what absolutely makes it worthwhile. If you look at the scenario in any depth at all, the fireflies come out as absolute fanatics. None of their choices in that moment make any sense, and looking at what we are actually given in the game, there is only one ethical choice for Joel to make.

I realize why that might have happened. They struggled to figure out the ending for a long time, and it was Druckmann who finally put it together. And like a lot of his stuff it is emotionally gripping in the moment, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you look deeper into it. What I do find curious is if it WAS supposed to be as morally ambiguous as they say, why make the specific choices they did? Not asking Ellie's consent, the recorders that basically say that they are throwing a shot in the dark, the mind-bogglingly stupid decision to do all of this within hours of finding her. All of those are the text of the game. And it takes nearly all of the moral ambiguity out of it. Part of the reason it keeps coming up now is because so much of TLoU2 hinges on the fallout from it,. Originaly it was to be fallout from Joel's hunter days, which would have worked a lot better.

 

[Keihart]

You haven't answered the question. That answers why they would sacrifice her. That is a reason, and it's even a reason for which Ellie might be willing to sacrifice herself. My question is, why not ask? Why do it RIGHT THEN? Why not give her a day to think it over, why not let her say her goodbyes? Everyone understands the reason that her sacrifice would benefit the world, we know why they are willing to kill her. But it is in them not offering her a choice, in not even giving her the knowledge of what will happen that they become monsters, flat out.

Why did the US didn't ask the japanese people before dropping the bomb? It's not rocket science, common!
They don't want to risk it, they are not basing their decision in Ellie's, they already have justification.
The fact that WE and JOEL know Ellie's opinion it's what's agravating. If not, Joel would have no reason to feel guilty about it nor would find the need to lie Ellie about it.

 

[sol_bad]

Yeah they mention it, but again look at the text of the game. Look the ending sequence was always the most contrived section of TLoU, it worked as well as it did because it didn't hinge on the fireflies actions making sense, it hinged on the lie. The Lie is what absolutely makes it worthwhile. If you look at the scenario in any depth at all, the fireflies come out as absolute fanatics. None of their choices in that moment make any sense, and looking at what we are actually given in the game, there is only one ethical choice for Joel to make.

I realize why that might have happened. They struggled to figure out the ending for a long time, and it was Druckmann who finally put it together. And like a lot of his stuff it is emotionally gripping in the moment, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you look deeper into it. What I do find curious is if it WAS supposed to be as morally ambiguous as they say, why make the specific choices they did? Not asking Ellie's consent, the recorders that basically say that they are throwing a shot in the dark, the mind-bogglingly stupid decision to do all of this within hours of finding her. All of those are the text of the game. And it takes nearly all of the moral ambiguity out of it. Part of the reason it keeps coming up now is because so much of TLoU2 hinges on the fallout from it,. Originaly it was to be fallout from Joel's hunter days, which would have worked a lot better.

Everything you keep saying is from the perspective of Joel. And if we use his perspective, what you say is true, it was the right moral choice to make in his mind. It was a selfish decision but it was right.

Coming from the Fireflies perspective, they were just as selfish but just as right in their actions as Joel. They didn't want to give Ellie a choice in case she said no. If she created a cure, it justifies all the horrible things they have done for 20 years or so.

In Joels mind, he justifies his actions of murdering 20+ Fireflies because he saved his "daughter".

I'm not quite sure you understand what a redemption arc is tbh dude. A redemption arc is about a positive change of direction for a character from bad to good, not necessarily about undoing the past. Something or someone comes into a characters life and it makes them change their ways for the better. Joel's story in the last of us isn't an out and out tale of redemption though. Not because he can't be redeemed, but simply because by the time we meet him he's not an out and out villainous character as he's already moved on from his past misdeeds. Although his is able to draw deep from the wellspring of his earlier life when circumstance demands it (as when torturing fools). If anything at the beginning of the game he's firmly in the Han Solo Rogue camp of self interest if there's money at the end of it. Ellie is nothing more than a Job initially, it's only as the game progresses that a bond is formed between them and if anything it's about Joel finally coming to terms with his own loss and learning to care about someone else as he guides them and gradually teaches them how to survive to this hostile world.

Sorry kadayi, forgot to reply to you.
I think you may be a bit confused what a redemption arc is.

redemption
the action of saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil.

Redemption Arcs: How to Redeem a Flawed Character | The Novel Smithy

Redemption arcs are a powerful tool for transforming flawed characters in a meaningful way. However, they require two traits to be successful.

thenovelsmithy.com

.
"At its core, a redemption arc is a storytelling device where a character who is evil and destructive—or embodies evil, destructive traits—atones for their flaws and overcomes them, transforming from villain to hero."

As you said Joel is not evil, he is just a guy trying to survive. At the beginning of TLOU1 he has not moved on from his past deeds. Unless you call smashing Robert in the face with a boot heel and snapping his arm good deeds. He may not be as terrible as he used to be but he is still a terrible person. Ellie is a job at the beginning but it's a job he didn't even want to take, he only took it because Tess told him to.
At the end of the game, absolutely none of the actions he takes are redeemable. Killing 1-3 unarmed (I'd argue that someone holding a scalpel is not armed for Joel) surgeons, killing god knows how many Fireflies, shooting Marlene point blank in the face and lying to Ellie. Nothing redeemable.
Yes, Joel is a changed man because he has something in his life that he cares about but he has not been redeemed for everything he has done for the last 20 years.

 

[bishopcruz]

Everything you keep saying is from the perspective of Joel. And if we use his perspective, what you say is true, it was the right moral choice to make in his mind. It was a selfish decision but it was right.

Coming from the Fireflies perspective, they were just as selfish but just as right in their actions as Joel. They didn't want to give Ellie a choice in case she said no. If she created a cure, it justifies all the horrible things they have done for 20 years or so.

In Joels mind, he justifies his actions of murdering 20+ Fireflies because he saved his "daughter".

I am looking at it from the perspective of a third party. So let's say there is a girl who is told by a group of terrorists who say that if they can study her can cure cancer. She had a sister who died of cancer the previous year, and she wants to help destroy the dreaded disease, so she agrees to go. And let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are right. After they take her in they tell her father she will die for this cure. He cannot see her, she cannot see him, and if he tries to stop them, he will die. She has not given consent to being sacrificed. He is to be marched out into a desert with no gear for good measure. During the struggle he stops his own kidnapping and shoots his way to the operating theater. There the doctor brandishes his scalpel at close range and threatens to kill him. He kills the doctor and takes the girl out. As he leaves the leader of the organization holds him at gunpoint before trying to negotiate for the girl again, he shoots them, puts the girl in a getaway vehicle, then comes back to finish the job to minimize the chance that the terrorists can track him down to get the girl again.

The terrorists absolutely think they are in the right. That does not MAKE them in the right. From a third-party scenario, ANYONE with an even basic understanding of ethics would side with the father. Outside of informing the father that his daughter would die and not shooting him flat out. they have made every unethical decision possible. What they believe is right in the scenario is irrelevant. They kidnapped and planned to murder a girl. If this man did what he did above, not a jury in the world would convict him. Not one.

If any of the terrorists were brought before a court and tried, they would all be guilty of kidnapping and attempted murder at the very least.

And let's make one thing clear. Joel in no definition of the word murdered the fireflies. He MIGHT be argued to have murdered Marlene, but if the term justifiable homicide is to have any meaning at all, killing the Fireflies is it. Joel's actions are justified by the scenario. Subjective morality has its limits, live, and let live requires you to actually let people live. The initiation of force pretty much robbed the fireflies of their own justification.

Why did the US didn't ask the japanese people before dropping the bomb? It's not rocket science, common!
They don't want to risk it, they are not basing their decision in Ellie's, they already have justification.
The fact that WE and JOEL know Ellie's opinion it's what's agravating. If not, Joel would have no reason to feel guilty about it nor would find the need to lie Ellie about it.

Ok, come on you can do better than that. Try harder. In a war the desired effect requires both surprise and immediacy of action. And also the US DID tell these places they were going to be bombed, so your analogy fails there as well. The ethics of war are also a very different debate. none of which apply here.

Because there isn't an answer as to why the immediacy of action was required and why the lack of consent or even knowledge was required. If Marlene was so sure that Elly would say yes then why not ask her. Even if they thought she would say no, why not ask her? Doing the surgery in a day or a week or even a month later doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things. I try not to bring it up all the time, but even ruling out all other options in a way that was believable in the narrative would have made things actually ambiguous. The fireflies acted as if immediacy was necessary, when there was no story reason that it was. Hence they via the text wanted to kill a girl after studying her for a few hours and she is the only immune person they have ever seen. They lose nothing by asking her, not one single thing. But by not doing so they also lose all chance at his being and ethical decision.

And you keep saying you know Ellie's opinion. What you are saying is the equivalent of a girl saying she'd like to bang a dude, then because she said that he is going to rape her while she is passed out on a couch. Sorry for being so crass, but that is basically the same thing. Consent actually matters in the moment. There are reasons that informed consent is the pillar of medicine. We cannot know what Elliie would have said at that moment because she was never given that chance. She assumes that she would have said yes, but that is easy to say in hindsight when the danger is not imminent. She said she didn't want it to be for nothing, that is true, but she also planned on learning swim and play guitar with Joel later. She had no reason to believe that seeing the fireflies was a death sentence, the most she had to worry bout was an extended stay, maybe a very extended one as they ran tests on her.

 

[Keihart]

I am looking at it from the perspective of a third party. So let's say there is a girl who is told by a group of terrorists who say that if they can study her can cure cancer. She had a sister who died of cancer the previous year, and she wants to help destroy the dreaded disease, so she agrees to go. And let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are right. After they take her in they tell her father she will die for this cure. He cannot see her, she cannot see him, and if he tries to stop them, he will die. She has not given consent to being sacrificed. He is to be marched out into a desert with no gear for good measure. During the struggle he stops his own kidnapping and shoots his way to the operating theater. There the doctor brandishes his scalpel at close range and threatens to kill him. He kills the doctor and takes the girl out. As he leaves the leader of the organization holds him at gunpoint before trying to negotiate for the girl again, he shoots them, puts the girl in a getaway vehicle, then comes back to finish the job to minimize the chance that the terrorists can track him down to get the girl again.

The terrorists absolutely think they are in the right. That does not MAKE them in the right. From a third-party scenario, ANYONE with an even basic understanding of ethics would side with the father. Outside of informing the father that his daughter would die and not shooting him flat out. they have made every unethical decision possible. What they believe is right in the scenario is irrelevant. They kidnapped and planned to murder a girl. If this man did what he did above, not a jury in the world would convict him. Not one.

If any of the terrorists were brought before a court and tried, they would all be guilty of kidnapping and attempted murder at the very least.

And let's make one thing clear. Joel in no definition of the word murdered the fireflies. He MIGHT be argued to have murdered Marlene, but if the term justifiable homicide is to have any meaning at all, killing the Fireflies is it. Joel's actions are justified by the scenario. Subjective morality has its limits, live, and let live requires you to actually let people live. The initiation of force pretty much robbed the fireflies of their own justification.



Ok, come on you can do better than that. Try harder. In a war the desired effect requires both surprise and immediacy of action. And also the US DID tell these places they were going to be bombed, so your analogy fails there as well. The ethics of war are also a very different debate. none of which apply here.

Because there isn't an answer as to why the immediacy of action was required and why the lack of consent or even knowledge was required. If Marlene was so sure that Elly would say yes then why not ask her. Even if they thought she would say no, why not ask her? Doing the surgery in a day or a week or even a month later doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things. I try not to bring it up all the time, but even ruling out all other options in a way that was believable in the narrative would have made things actually ambiguous. The fireflies acted as if immediacy was necessary, when there was no story reason that it was. Hence they via the text wanted to kill a girl after studying her for a few hours and she is the only immune person they have ever seen. They lose nothing by asking her, not one single thing. But by not doing so they also lose all chance at his being and ethical decision.

And you keep saying you know Ellie's opinion. What you are saying is the equivalent of a girl saying she'd like to bang a dude, then because she said that he is going to rape her while she is passed out on a couch. Sorry for being so crass, but that is basically the same thing. Consent actually matters in the moment. There are reasons that informed consent is the pillar of medicine. We cannot know what Elliie would have said at that moment because she was never given that chance. She assumes that she would have said yes, but that is easy to say in hindsight when the danger is not imminent. She said she didn't want it to be for nothing, that is true, but she also planned on learning swim and play guitar with Joel later. She had no reason to believe that seeing the fireflies was a death sentence, the most she had to worry

you keep putting your moral standard as the one of the Fireflies. That it's not the situation.

The fireflies have the opportunity of saving the world in their eyes, is that worth killing 1 girl after all the other things they have done? That's is what they answer with a yes by killing Ellie. It's the trolley dilemma, if they don't by inaction, they kill many more people.

Joel knows what Ellie wants, it doesn't really matter to him what age she is, because she is not his daughter either and the decision it's not hims either. If anything the only one with some paternal rights it's Marlene and even then, not that much given the world state at this point.

 

[Saruhashi]

I usually like them but I couldn’t make this through this video. I’m not a fan of the condescending “we understood the game” narrative whenever a controversial piece of media comes out. As if the people who didn’t like it are morons who didn’t get it. No that’s a false narrative. Plenty of people understood what they were doing and thought it was shit. No need to bring in some cognitive snobbery to justify your like of a game.

You have to laugh as well at the change in tone for this video too.

Usually they are kind of funny with a lot of jokes and quips.

Here it's like "settle down this time children because we need to talk about a very serious and very important video game".

Something tells me we'll be seeing more of this next gen.

I wonder when we'll see games getting negative comments because they are just trying to be fun and are "not saying anything".

 

[Keihart]

You have to laugh as well at the change in tone for this video too.

Usually they are kind of funny with a lot of jokes and quips.

Here it's like "settle down this time children because we need to talk about a very serious and very important video game".

Something tells me we'll be seeing more of this next gen.

I wonder when we'll see games getting negative comments because they are just trying to be fun and are "not saying anything".

Not the first video with a similar tone, Death Stranding review was pretty similar

 

[bishopcruz]

you keep putting your moral standard as the one of the Fireflies. That it's not the situation.

The fireflies have the opportunity of saving the world in their eyes, is that worth killing 1 girl after all the other things they have done? That's is what they answer with a yes by killing Ellie. It's the trolley dilemma, if they don't by inaction, they kill many more people.

Joel knows what Ellie wants, it doesn't really matter to him what age she is, because she is not his daughter either and the decision it's not hims either. If anything the only one with some paternal rights it's Marlene and even then, not that much given the world state at this point.

The fireflies believe they are right. So fucking what? White supremacists believe they are right, communists believe they are right. A LOT of people believe they are right. That doesn't make them right. What does or does not makes them right is their actions and the context of them. You aren't even trying.

And you still haven't answered what they lose by telling Ellie what will happen. Hell, they can ignore her afterward, they showed that they would anyway, So why not even try to make it consent, because they are shown to be fanatics who are willing to do immoral things for their cause. Why do it immediately? BEcause of contrivance, really, but it is what is in the game and it makes them completely in the wrong in this scenario.

You also keep going back to "Joel knows what Ellie wants." WHERE exactly where does Ellie say "If I am ever under anesthesia and they want to kill me to make a cure, I'm totally cool with that." You're being purposefully obtuse here. At no point does Ellie ever consent to death by firefly. She never even hints at it. She DOES want her life to be worth something, and that is as far as it goes. Later on she says she had that taken from her, but again that is years later in hindsight and not knowing the whole story.

"But then why did the bad man lie?" Because he wanted to spare her the guilt of having all of those deaths on her hands? Not that they would be, but Ellie would have considered them her fault. She was a traumatized girl with massive survivor's guilt. Hell it shows up in Part 2, she flat out says that it was her fault, Joel did it because of her. He wanted to spare her from that knowledge, and look I am not an idiot, he likely also wanted to stop her from finding another doctor who would do the same thing. And that is the moral ambiguity. Not letting her know, lying to her in the first place. I think he was right to do so, but I can understand the other side of the argument.

With the fireflies, their actions are indefensible. Call their motives pure all you want, their actions are what speaks volumes.

 

[Keihart]

The fireflies believe they are right. So fucking what? White supremacists believe they are right, communists believe they are right. A LOT of people believe they are right. That doesn't make them right. What does or does not makes them right is their actions and the context of them. You aren't even trying.

And you still haven't answered what they lose by telling Ellie what will happen. Hell, they can ignore her afterward, they showed that they would anyway, So why not even try to make it consent, because they are shown to be fanatics who are willing to do immoral things for their cause. Why do it immediately? BEcause of contrivance, really, but it is what is in the game and it makes them completely in the wrong in this scenario.

You also keep going back to "Joel knows what Ellie wants." WHERE exactly where does Ellie say "If I am ever under anesthesia and they want to kill me to make a cure, I'm totally cool with that." You're being purposefully obtuse here. At no point does Ellie ever consent to death by firefly. She never even hints at it. She DOES want her life to be worth something, and that is as far as it goes. Later on she says she had that taken from her, but again that is years later in hindsight and not knowing the whole story.

"But then why did the bad man lie?" Because he wanted to spare her the guilt of having all of those deaths on her hands? Not that they would be, but Ellie would have considered them her fault. She was a traumatized girl with massive survivor's guilt. Hell it shows up in Part 2, she flat out says that it was her fault, Joel did it because of her. He wanted to spare her from that knowledge, and look I am not an idiot, he likely also wanted to stop her from finding another doctor who would do the same thing. And that is the moral ambiguity. Not letting her know, lying to her in the first place. I think he was right to do so, but I can understand the other side of the argument.

With the fireflies, their actions are indefensible. Call their motives pure all you want, their actions are what speaks volumes.

dude, there is a fucking cut scene about Ellie wanting to go there even if it means dying.
You even have Ellie acting strange after really considering it.

From the point of the fireflies, letting Ellie go under any circumstance it's letting the chance of saving the world go.

Read it as you want it, but the point is that Joel robbed Ellie of her wanting to be a martyr because he loves her as a daughter, it's really not as complicated as your circles around the events.

 

[joe_zazen]

I cant believe anyone would defend vivisection of a child. It is Heinous, evil, and satanic.

 

[Balducci30]

it's the fucking trolley dilemma, why be so dense on purpose.

The only correct answer depends on your own morals, there it's no true right answer.

i agree that Joel was in the right. But this is technically true - it’s really based off your own morals.
However I will say that is part of the reason “law” exists - in part is to have a defined set of morals/values for a civilization.
In the concept of the game though that system has obviously broken down. I morally think Joel did the right thing based off my personal opinion - and I do think the way they discussed and viewed the event in the second game purposefully tries to push you away from that - the doctor having new lines, the cure being seemingly a 100% thing etc - which in the first game all was left more ambiguous. So I get the critique - but yeah it’s really a matter of personal opinion.

 

[joe_zazen]

... but yeah it’s really a matter of personal opinion.

so no moral absolutes in your world? No Natural law? Atheist?

 

[bishopcruz]

dude, there is a fucking cut scene about Ellie wanting to go there even if it means dying.
You even have Ellie acting strange after really considering it.

No there isn't. The scenes you are talking about ar ambiguous at best. You are putting your own impressions of her into the game and there is nothing there that backs it up. You want the fireflies to be right so you are reading into it. Again if I am forgetting a cut scene then let me know, and I will reconsider, but flat out the "It can't all be for nothing" scene does not mean she is cool to die in the surgery room without knowledge of shit.

Fact is we can never know and that is the point. And the fact that you are so cool with them not asking her pretty much cements this view. If Marlene KNEW with certainty that she was ok with it, then there's no harm in asking her. Listen to the lines from all of the fireflies. Each and every single one is a rationalization. Marlene's journal is another one, she basically says that she did her job in looking after Ellie even as she is about to kill her. These are fanatics who have gone over the deep end, and the game cannot be clearer about it.

And that is the difference here, in the ethics I am putting forward here we don't have to make a nebulous guess as to whether or not Ellie is alright with dying for the cure in the way that they are doing it. We ask her, and if you don't ask her, well then you sir have just become an attempted murderer. This isn't something that is far out of left field, this isn't something that we can only really work with now because of how our world it. This is as close to universal morality as it gets. If you don't think the killing of an innocent is wrong, then well those hunters throughout the game aren't that bad, they are just doing it for their greater good. The Fedra agents? Well they do what they have to do to keep order. David and his cannibals? Well a man's gotta eat, and it gets lonely up in those mountains, and I'm sure he'll treat Ellie right over time.

So no, no matter how much you equivocate, no matter how much you try to figure out what is in someone's head, what they did was wrong, and you know it is, you are just trying to rationalize your way out of it, just like the fireflies did.